The path not taken.

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan will strike any North Korean ballistic missile that threatens to hit Japan in the coming weeks after Pyongyang recently fired medium-range missiles, a government source said on Saturday.

Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera issued the order, which took effect on Thursday and runs through April 25, the day that marks the founding of North Korea's army, the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Following the order, meant "to prepare for any additional missile launches," a destroyer was dispatched to the Sea of Japan and will fire if North Korea launches a missile that Tokyo deems in danger of striking or falling on Japanese territory, the source said.

Tensions have been building between North Korea and its neighbors since Pyongyang - in an apparent show of defiance - fired two Rodong missiles on March 26, just as the leaders of Japan, South Korea and the United States were sitting down to discuss containing the North Korean nuclear threat.

That first firing in four years of mid-range missiles that can hit Japan followed a series of short-range rocket launches over the past two months. The Rodong ballistic missiles fell into the sea after flying 650 km (400 miles), short of a maximum range thought to be some 1,300 km, Japan said.

Since then, North Korea has rattled sabres by firing artillery rounds into South Korean waters, prompting the South to fire back; South Korea has test-fired a new ballistic missile with a range of 500 km; and Pyongyang has threatened an unspecified "new form" of nuclear test.

Japan sent a Maritime Self-Defense Force Aegis destroyer to patrol the Sea of Japan on April 3 in response to North Korea’s launch of two Rodong medium-range ballistic missiles on March 26.

Although Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera ordered the SDF to intercept any North Korean missile that threatens Japan, the central government did not publicly announce the deployment, reflecting Tokyo’s desire not to whip up hysteria ahead of the next round of talks slated with Pyongyang.

The interception order, based on the Self-Defense Force Law, will be effective through April 25, the 82nd anniversary of the founding of the Korean People's Army.

Based on the order, the SDF Aegis destroyer Kirishima, carrying Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) interceptors, is routinely patrolling the Sea of Japan under the guise of conducting military exercises.

In April last year, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government issued an interception order after North Korea deployed Musudan medium-range ballistic missiles and Rodong missiles. Although two Aegis destroyers were sent to patrol the Sea of Japan last year, the government sent only the Kirishima this year.

The government also decided not to deploy the surface-to-air guided Patriot PAC-3 missiles, which were installed last year in the compound of the Defense Ministry in central Tokyo.

The latest interception order is the fifth since 2009. All were issued to counter North Korean missile launches. Since Pyongyang did not issue an actual launch warning last year, Tokyo also held back announcing its interception order. But the Defense Ministry showed deployed PAC-3 missiles to the media in a show of its counter-missile preparedness.

The government proceeded with the deployment without fanfare this time and held back deploying PAC-3 missiles because it “wants to make necessary responses out of public view,” according to a government source.

Government officials have explained that efforts had been made “not to stir up public anxiety and give strong consideration to the diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea.”

Japan and North Korea resumed official high-level talks in late March in Beijing, attended by bureau chiefs of their respective foreign ministries. Confidential, closed-door negotiations are also under way.

The Abe administration has set the settlement of the abduction of Japanese nationals by North Korea as one of its primary political goals. It apparently does not want to irritate Pyongyang by playing up its counter-missile responses.

Meanwhile, neither Japan, South Korea nor the United States predicted the launch of the Rodong missiles on March 26. As of April 4, Japan had not detected any sign that Pyongyang is preparing another launch.

CLEARANCE: Top Secret

U.S. sending 2 warships to counter North Korea
Hagel says China must respect its neighbors

TOKYO — U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivered a two-pronged warning to Asia Pacific nations on Sunday, announcing that the United States will send two more ballistic missile destroyers to Japan to counter the North Korean threat, and saying China must better respect its neighbors.

Mr. Hagel drew a direct line between Russia’s takeover of Ukraine’s Crimea region and the territorial disputes among China, Japan, and others over remote islands in the East China Sea.

“I think we’re seeing some clear evidence of a lack of respect and intimidation and coercion in Europe today with what the Russians have done with Ukraine,” Mr. Hagel said after talks with Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera.

“We must be very careful and we must be very clear, all nations of the world, that in the 21st century this will not stand, you cannot go around the world and redefine boundaries and violate territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations by force, coercion, and intimidation, whether it’s in small islands in the Pacific or large nations in Europe.”

Mr. Hagel, who will travel to China this week, called the Asian nation a “great power,” and added, “with this power comes new and wider responsibilities as to how you use that power, how you employ that military power.”

He said he will talk to the Chinese about having respect for their neighbors. “All nations, all people deserve respect no matter how large or how small,” Mr. Hagel said.

The defense chief said he looks forward to a straightforward dialogue with the Chinese about how the two nations and their militaries can work better together.

The deployment of added destroyers was announced as tensions with North Korea spiked again, with Pyongyang continuing to threaten additional missile and nuclear tests.

The North has conducted rocket and ballistic missile launches that are considered acts of protest against annual ongoing springtime military exercises by Seoul and Washington.

North Korea says the exercises are rehearsals for invasion.

North and South Korea also fired hundreds of artillery shells into each other’s waters in late March in the most recent flare-up.

Mr. Hagel said the two ships are being deployed in response to North Korea’s “pattern of provocative and destabilizing actions” that violate U.N. resolutions and also will provide more protection to the United States from those threats.

The two ships would bring the total to seven U.S. ballistic missile defense warships in Japan.

The path not taken.

ORIGINAL CAPTION: A video grab from KCNA shows the Unha-3 (Milky Way 3) rocket launching at North Korea's West Sea Satellite Launch Site, at the satellite control centre in Cholsan county, North Pyongan province in this video released by KCNA in Pyongyang December 13, 2012.

The path not taken.

SEOUL (AFP-Jiji) — Washington and Seoul have postponed talks on deploying an advanced missile defense system opposed by Beijing, South Korea’s Defense Ministry said Tuesday as China’s foreign minister was set to discuss North Korea with his U.S. counterpart.

The allies had been set to sign an agreement Tuesday on setting up a joint working group to look into the roll-out of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) against North Korea’s growing missile threat.

“The related accord is in the final stages but has been postponed by a day or two because of last-minute negotiations,” ministry spokesman Moon Sang Gyun said.

The THAAD system fires anti-ballistic missiles into the sky to smash into enemy missiles either inside or outside the Earth’s atmosphere during their final flight phase.

The interceptor missiles carry no warheads, instead relying on kinetic energy to destroy their targets.

More than two weeks ago, the allies announced their intention to begin talks on its deployment following Pyongyang’s long-range ballistic missile launch on Feb. 7 but negotiations to launch the Joint Working Group were protracted.

The delay comes as Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was to visit Washington from Tuesday to meet his U.S. counterpart John Kerry for possible talks over the controversial defense system and North Korea.

China opposes the proposed deployment of THAAD, with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying warning Monday that it should not be used as a front to “undermine China’s own legitimate [security] interests.

CLEARANCE: Top Secret

From the article:The US and South Korea have agreed to deploy a controversial missile defence system, in the wake of intensifying threats from North Korea.

It is the selective characterization of an issue as “controversial” that determines bias. All political issues are by nature controversial. The media only applies the description as it suits their own political views. For example, the media would not report a decision to NOT deploy THAAD as controversial.

In this particular example, the “controversial” description is applied directly to THAAD rather than the deployment in South Korea although this may be a matter of ambiguous wording. It fits a narrative where all missile defense systems are controversial, unproved, and provocative.

"may be a matter of ambiguous wording" ... so subject to interpretation. The Chinese government has been screaming blue murder quite vocally expressed its disapproval about South Korea deploying THAAD. I think, as I read it, the BBC calling THAAD deployment in South Korea controversial is just about right.

fredymac said:

It fits a narrative where all missile defense systems are controversial, unproved, and provocative.

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret

From the article:The US and South Korea have agreed to deploy a controversial missile defence system, in the wake of intensifying threats from North Korea.

It is the selective characterization of an issue as “controversial” that determines bias. All political issues are by nature controversial. The media only applies the description as it suits their own political views. For example, the media would not report a decision to NOT deploy THAAD as controversial.

In this particular example, the “controversial” description is applied directly to THAAD rather than the deployment in South Korea although this may be a matter of ambiguous wording. It fits a narrative where all missile defense systems are controversial, unproved, and provocative.

Exactly. And it never goes away. The F-111 is still often referred to as "controversial" even though it proved itself time and time again. THAAD was controversial during it's first testing phase (rightfully so as they had MANY problems though most of them were of a QC nature- which doesn't reflect on the capability of the system itself but its reliability). Since the 2nd phase of testing started, and ever since then, it's performance and reliability has been stellar. But nope, "controversial" sells. :

"may be a matter of ambiguous wording" ... so subject to interpretation. The Chinese government has been screaming blue murder quite vocally expressed its disapproval about South Korea deploying THAAD. I think, as I read it, the BBC calling THAAD deployment in South Korea controversial is just about right.

fredymac said:

It fits a narrative where all missile defense systems are controversial, unproved, and provocative.

"*The* media" don't exist." Yes they do. The days when you can proclaim the media is institutionally unbiased are dead. Way too many examples and statistics to pretend otherwise. If you want to quibble and say one or two outlets are not left wing fine. But to say that BBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/NY Times/Washington Post/etc etc ad infinitum don't share a 90% leftwing mindset requires a massive exercise in willful denial. I could point you to websites that catalog all the examples (percent of reporters voting/funding leftwing politicians, revolving door between media and leftwing parties, actual case histories, etc.) but I doubt you would be interested. You would have a hard time finding conservative politicians who will vouch for virtually any of the major news media organizations in the US and they would be backed up by their voting constituencies.

As for China being opposed to THAAD there is no disputing that. Does that constitute controversy? To whom? Controversy is usually defined domestically. Missile defense is controversial in the sense that there are domestic interests who are opposed to it per se.

Regarding the "notoriously biased BBC", I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. Are you saying the BBC is unbiased? The BBC itself has admitted it is biased. I doubt Nigel Farage would have kind things to say about them. I would guess most of the people who just voted BREXIT would agree.

It's turtles all the way down

This forum has an international audience. Among "BBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/NY Times/Washington Post/etc etc ad infinitum" you list one non-US medium.
I see you left out Foxnews, which has a sizeable audience in the USA.

If you address an international audience with the concept "The Media", your audience wil check your message against international media.

fredymac said:

Regarding the "notoriously biased BBC", I can't tell if you are being sarcastic.

Are you saying the BBC is unbiased? The BBC itself has admitted it is biased. I doubt Nigel Farage would have kind things to say about them. I would guess most of the people who just voted BREXIT would agree.

Over the year, I've watched the BBC's coverage of brexit on TV and the internet. The BBC has been bending over backwards to present a balanced view of as many arguments pro and con as was humanly possible.

Those are just some UK sites. Spanish, German, Italian, French and Dutch mass media are just as diverse. Don't know about the rest of Europe, but I expect similar diversity. Latin America, Africa, Asia all have their own mass media.

To suggest international media are mostly marching to the same "leftwing mindset" is akin to suggesting all mammals have a fondness for strawberry ice-cream. I've checked with our cats - they don't.

CLEARANCE: Top Secret

At the risk of going off-topic and continuing with this debate, I was under the impression that European media is openly biased and people know who is who. For example, does anyone think "The Guardian" isn't left wing?

As for the BBC, they too have a website that tracks their bias: http://biasedbbc.org

I don't know enough about European newspapers to know if the openly left papers dominate circulation. In the US, virtually all newspaper chains are leftwing as are the general news bureaus (AP, UPI). All of the "public airwaves" broadcast media are also leftwing (hopefully this will end and the airwaves auctioned off in a manner proportional to political divisions).

From what I can tell, most countries have state affiliated broadcast media (BBC in UK, ABC in Australia, etc). I think NHK in Japan is also state connected. At a minimum, this arrangement would inculcate an "establishment" cultural point of view. Of course in countries like Russia and China the media is essentially an arm of the government. In the US, we have NPR radio and PBS TV both of which are manifestly left and probably subject to termination if Republicans ever gain control over both Executive and Congressional branches.

In general, the same globalist/elitist vs populist/nationalist divide that is affecting both Europe and the US extends to the media. In the US, the media is squarely in the globalist/elitist camp including Fox News (just think of Rupert Murdoch vs Donald Trump). I would be surprised if this isn't true of Europe as well. Of course, if you are also on the left, this would be a case of "no bias here". One final aside, in Europe, "right wing" is a warmed over socialist in the US.

But at what point does one say, "okay the UN squawking obviously isn't doing anything, we should probably deal with this"? No matter when you do it it's going to cause a ruckus on the peninsula. I'd think the best time to do it would be BEFORE there is a risk of nuclear weapons being detonated.

But at what point does one say, "okay the UN squawking obviously isn't doing anything, we should probably deal with this"? No matter when you do it it's going to cause a ruckus on the peninsula. I'd think the best time to do it would be BEFORE there is a risk of nuclear weapons being detonated.

There is risk of that now, has been since they set off their fist bomb. On top of that risk there's a rather large North Korean conventional military to deal with, including a few hundred artillery pieces already in range of Seoul and a flock of subs which can threaten a whole lot of commercial shipping in the vicinity of Korea. There is no good time to "deal with it" by turning the current status quo into a hot conflict, the DPRK doesn't need an ICBM to kill a whole lot of people and kick the world economy in the beans.

We are doing more than "UN squawking;" we're building up our ability to defend against a limited or rogue launch and we're doing our best to draw our allies together even when, as in the case of South Korea and Japan, they have often not seen eye-to-eye on much. We're even managing to bring China away from their "support NK at all turns" stance a bit, no mean feat considering the other issues we're grappling with them on. It's not fast, it's not often pretty, and there's dangers down this path. But if we succeed on this path it's the best possible option, and if we fail it will be because the DPRK went over the line and forced the world (China included) to intervene against them.

No, ultimately it would be North Korea's fault if they decided to unilaterally attack one another country with nuclear weapons.
It doesn't line with some contributors mindsets but sometimes there isn't a simple answer and some hair-brained idea of instigating a war against North Korea in the hope of preventing a potential future nuclear attack that will probably never happen is right up there with stupidest ideas I've ever heard.
As many contributors have already noted North Korea could certainly cause massive damage and death to South Korea in a very short time with non-nuclear weapons.
The current policy approach by the US and its allies towards North Korea is the least worst available and proponents of wilder courses of action are really saying more about their own insecurities and complexes rather than proposing a credible alternative course of action.

Japan’s missile defense is twofold: Its SM-3 interceptor missiles installed on MSDF Aegis destroyers can shoot down missiles outside the atmosphere, and the PAC-3 surface-to-air missiles of the Air Self-Defense Force can reach more than 10 kilometers above ground level.

When U.S. military satellites detect a launch, the missile is tracked and intercepted using an Aegis destroyer radar and ASDF control and warning radar, such as the FPS-5 and the FPS-3 UG (upgraded).

However, the central government did not detect signs of the Aug. 3 Rodong launch before it happened. Consequently, an order to be ready to shoot down and intercept was not given to the Self-Defense Forces, revealing issues about how Japan would respond to a surprise attack. Defense Minister Tomomi Inada issued a shoot-down order on Aug. 8 that will be maintained for the time being, placing a huge burden on the SDF.

The Defense Ministry plans to increase its fleet of SM-3-equipped Aegis destroyers from the current four to eight by fiscal 2020. Next-generation systems including the SM-3 are currently being jointly developed with the United States in the aim of deploying them next fiscal year. There are also plans to introduce a missile defense system that protects a wider area than the current PAC-3s and that better handles multiple warheads.

A move to install a U.S. THAAD system in Japan will be accelerated. If the THAAD — which intercept missiles at the point of reentry into the atmosphere — is deployed, it will fill the gaps left by the SM-3s and PAC-3s.

Kaneda praised the THAAD as being “highly capable” and said, “[The Defense Ministry] should also look at introducing a ground-based Aegis system. Continuous operation is easier than the sea-based type, and they are being deployed in Europe. It would be a strong defense system if equipped with various missile types, including the SM-3.”

A major issue is how to cope with the enormous cost of strengthening missile defense. What equipment to introduce and in what order — with a limited budget — is vital to moving forward strategically.[/snip]

The defense ministry's request covers the 100 billion yen cost to upgrade Japan's PAC-3 missile defense system, said the source, who declined to be identified, as he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Such an upgrade would roughly double the missile system's range to more than 30 kilometers, other sources have said.

The budget proposal also includes the cost of production of the Block IIA version of the Standard Missile-3 system being jointly developed with the United States to shoot down missiles at higher altitudes, the source added.

WASHINGTON — The Army’s most advanced version of the Patriot missile broke its own distance record to intercept a target, according to Lockheed Martin, the missile’s manufacturer.

The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptor took out an air-breathing threat target in a test at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, July 26.

According to Lockheed, this marks the furthest distance a PAC-3 MSE missile has intercepted an air-breathing target. These types of targets mimic the flight profile of fixed-wing aircraft or cruise missiles.

“PAC-3 MSE continues to be successful against today’s evolving threats, and this most recent test validates its effectiveness at extreme distances,” Jay Pitman, vice president of PAC-3 programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said in a statement.